First, on terms: Everyone who can read should by now know that weather does not equal climate. Donald Trump, Don McKee and a host of other climate contrarians seem to struggle with this fact. Dictionaries are your friends, use them.

Second, on evidence: Related to the first point, a sudden drop in temperature for a few days where you happen to live is not sufficient evidence to contradict the decades of scientific evidence which show the average temperature of the planet is warming. Don’t be willfully ignorant.

Third, on sources: The New American is a publication of the John Birch Society. Scientific information should be gathered from scientific sources, not magazines which reside on an ideological fringe of the political spectrum. Even if the New American had it right, it would not be a credible source. Understand that credibility matters.

Finally, on half-truths: This statement, “ice covers in both the North and South Polar Regions have expanded,” is both vague and misleading. Ice covers and Polar Regions? Is Mr. McKee talking about continental polar ice shelves, which are unequivocally receding, or is he talking about polar sea ice coverage, which ebbs and flows with each season? Is he talking about just this season or does he mean over the past thirty years? And so on. Use critical thinking skills to analyze claims.

I'm happy this letter has elicited a healthy response. For all of those linking to non-scientific sources such as blogs and political news aggregators, please see point three in my letter above regarding credible sources. Unless you can cite actual countervailing evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals (where actual scientific findings are published), then you are simply confirming your biases.

Does University of East Anglia - UEA, and bogus and manipulated emails ring a bell with the GW crowd. It should since it led to more funding for phony research. This week Dr. Richard Lindzen,noted climate scientist at MIT, stated, “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.

Sarducci (whoever you are, and I don't blame you for not IDing yourself, such are your mindless comments) -

Monetary grants are the motivation of researchers to lie? Are you serious? God, what a dope you are.

Let's pray you're not reproducing.

anonymous

|

January 21, 2014

Guido-

When are you going to accept the fact that Foley knows everything? He is always right--in his own mind. Unfortunately his alter ego Lib in blob is just as bad. He parrots himself with a pseudonym.

Guido Sarducci

|

January 21, 2014

If all this is so obvious why is there a large body of the scientifc community which disagrees? Also, why is there a large body which states that any global warming is the result of natural changes to the earth, which have been occuring since the "big bang?"

Further, the earth has been gradually warming and cooling since the ice age. It is nothing new, and is certainly nothing to panic about.

The short length of time in which man has been studying this natural phenomenon is woefully inadequate to justify the doomsday talk the "Global warming nuts" are trying to spread. Maybe, 50,000 years of compiled data would create basis from which to launch a meaningful study.

I can remember when the same kind of scientists were predicting a forthcoming ice age.

I can also remember yous stupid tale spreader, Al Gore, stating, without reservation, that the polar ice caps would be melted by 2014. Well, it's 2014 and according to satellite images, they are not only not melted, but are actually thicker than they have been in some years.

Guido, from November 2012 through December 2013, 9136 climate scientists contributed to 2258 peer-reviewed climate studies. Of those, only 1 scientist rejected man-made global warming. 1/9136 = .0109%. For most of us, that is not a large body of the scientific community.

Recently 50 others came out and challenged the data. Also check the very latest IPCC dat to see if they have not admitted that the computer models are sorely lacking ion their ability to calculate Global Warming..

Just ponder the Maunder!

Al Gore

|

January 21, 2014

"Critical thinking does not change facts."

'If all this is so obvious why is there a large body of the scientifc community which disagrees?'

Critical thinking? More like wishful thinking.

'...since the "big bang?'

Critical thinking? More like no thinking. Erath did not exist at the big bang.

'The short length of time in which man has been studying this natural phenomenon is woefully inadequate ...'

Critical thinking? Where is the justification for saying it is inadequate?

' they are not only not melted, but are actually thicker than they have been in some years.'

No, this is not critical thinking either. And a refernce for Al Gore saying this would help as I do not, at a guess, think he said it. (That is my critical thinking).

You do not know what you are talking about.

Al Gore

|

January 21, 2014

Anonymous

"I once believed in AGW. No longer. I spent the time to research all I could find."

No you didn't "research" all you could find. You spent a bit of time on a few denier websites and got taken in. If you had spent so much time really researching you would not be so uninformed as to just quote denier websites.

Kevin Foley

|

January 21, 2014

There are mountains of serious scientific data collected over the last 30 - 40 years by thousands of climate researchers around the world that show the earth is warming and manmade CO2 is the likely reason. But right wingers would have us believe all these researchers have colluded to perpetrate a "hoax."

Why? If the right wingers are accurate, what is the motivation of all these independent climate researchers? Where is their benefit for playing a trick?

Industries generating the CO2, on the other hand, have a very big financial stake in pushing climate change denial through their reliable media mouthpieces.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides